| 1 |
On Jan 19, 2008 4:13 PM, Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> >> Possibilities: |
| 3 |
> >> An element: <status>{active/inactive}</status> |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Status of what? seeing you have proposed a upstream-status and a |
| 6 |
> > maintainer status. what else is there left to status :P |
| 7 |
> There will be a <maintainer> tag within the <upstream></upstream>, not the |
| 8 |
> same as our already existing <maintainer> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> But the question I tried to express (probably not clear enough) is: |
| 11 |
> Should (if at all) the status being tracked for <upstream> or for |
| 12 |
> <maintainer> (within upstream). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> As an example "dev-libs/xmlwrapp": The original maintainer is inactive, but |
| 15 |
> there is a new one who took the package to sourceforge and it's not a fork |
| 16 |
> since the original maintainer agreed up on this. Should such a case be |
| 17 |
> tracked at all? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think we don't want to track if previous maintainer is active or |
| 21 |
not, or if it's changed. In your example, the important data is "who |
| 22 |
is the current maintainer and how to contact him" and "is she |
| 23 |
active?". Keeping an entry for the old maintainer as inactive when |
| 24 |
there's a new one is not like an useful piece of info. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Santiago M. Mola |
| 28 |
Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com |
| 29 |
éí¢‡^¾X¬¶È žÚ(¢¸&j)bž b² |
Archives